Saturday, September 29, 2007
Blurb from today's entry on www.catholicculture.org:
The name of the archangel Michael means, in Hebrew, who is like unto God? and he is also known as "the prince of the heavenly host." He is usually pictured as a strong warrior, dressed in armor and wearing sandals. His name appears in Scripture four times, twice in the Book of Daniel, and once each in the Epistle of St. Jude and the Book of Revelation. From Revelation we learn of the battle in heaven, with St. Michael and his angels combatting Lucifer and the other fallen angels (or devils). We invoke St. Michael to help us in our fight against Satan; to rescue souls from Satan, especially at the hour of death; to be the champion of the Jews in the Old Testament and now Christians; and to bring souls to judgment.
This day is referred to as "Michaelmas" in many countries and is also one of the harvest feast days. In England this is one of the "quarter days", which was marked by hiring servants, electing magistrates, and beginning of legal and university terms. This day also marks the opening of the deer and other large game hunting season. In some parts of Europe, especially Germany, Denmark, and Austria, a special wine called "Saint Michael's Love" (Michelsminne) is drunk on this day. The foods for this day vary depending on nationality. In the British Isles, for example, goose was the traditional meal for Michaelmas, eaten for prosperity, France has waffles or Gaufres and the traditional fare in Scotland used to be St. Michael's Bannock (Struan Micheil) — a large, scone-like cake. In Italy, gnocchi is the traditional fare.
Patron: Against temptations; against powers of evil; artists; bakers; bankers; battle; boatmen; cemeteries; coopers; endangered children; dying; Emergency Medical Technicians; fencing; grocers; hatmakers; holy death; knights; mariners; mountaineers; paramedics; paratroopers; police officers; radiologists; sailors; the sick; security forces; soldiers; against storms at sea; swordsmiths; those in need of protection; Brussels, Belgium; Caltanissett, Sicily; Cornwall, England; Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee Florida; England; Germany; Archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama; Papua, New Guinea; Puebla, Mexico; San Miguel de Allende, Mexico; Sibenik, Croatia; Archdiocese of Seattle, Washington; Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts.
Symbols: Angel with wings; dressed in armour; lance and shield; scales; shown weighing souls; millstone; piercing dragon or devil; banner charged with a dove; symbolic colors orange or gold.
That Michelsminne wine sounds tasty.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
I don't think I need to remind us about this kind of thing, but I will just feel a little better:
The Congregation of Divine Worship
"The dance has never been made an integral part of the official worhship of the Latin Church.
If local churches have accepted the dance, sometimes even in the church building, that was on the occasion of feasts in order to manifest sentiments of joy and devotion. But that always took place outside of liturgical services.
Conciliar decisions have often condemned the religious dance because it conduces little to worship and because it could degenerate into disorders.
[. . .]
However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture.
Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure. For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.
Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation."
From Cardinal Arinze
"Why make the people of God suffer so much? Haven't we enough problems already? Only Sunday, one hour, they come to adore God. And you bring a dance! Are you so poor you have nothing else to bring us? Shame on you! That's how I feel about it.
Somebody can say, "but the pope visited this county and the people danced". A moment: Did the pope arrange it? Poor Holy Father -- he comes, the people arranged. He does not know what they arranged. And somebody introduces something funny -- is the pope responsible for that? Does that mean it is now approved? Did they put in on the table of the Congregation for Divine
Worship? We would throw it out! If people want to dance, they know where to go."
From Benedict XVI
Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an appearance. . . . Dancing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, because, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes - incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy - none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy as the "reasonable sacrifice". It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy "attractive" by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals' point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation."
1. Do you attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo?
I attend the TLM as much as I can. I attend the NO if I miss the TLM or when my mother asks me to attend mass with her.
2. If you attend the TLM, how far do you drive to get there?
Google says I go about 17 miles.
3. If you had to apply a Catholic label to yourself, what would it be?
Taking PMG's advice and looking at Terry's labels I feel I fit in the Traditonal Catholic group. Though I've been called many other names as well, haha. I guess I could be called a Catholic Nerd too, by how much I have my nose in some Church document or bit of history from Newadvent.
4. Are you a comment junkie?
Being an addict of online bulletin boards, of course I am!
5. Do you go back to read the comments on the blogs you’ve commented on?
Always! I want to see if anyone brought up another good point or takes issue with what I or anyone else says to make a good defense.
6. Have you ever left an anonymous comment on another blog?
Nope. I stand by my words and take responsibility for what I say, and am always willing to make a defense for my statements. I can't stand "hit-and-run" comments, so I don't make the same mistake.
7. Which blogroll would you most like to be on?
Any of em! I think I've aready been added to all of my favorites except Rorate Caeli. I remember When I was first added to Salve Regina (first add I had) it really made my day. It felt very special. The same as when the cannonball added me to her blog too. I could go on and on!
8. Which blog is the first one you check?
I usually just run down my list on the sidebar. But if I'm in a hurry I hit Lair of the Catholic Caveman, Salve Regina, The Cafeteria is Closed, The Crescat, usually in that order. If there's a particularly involved discussion on one of the comboxes I usually check that one first to see if there's anything new.
9. Have you met any other bloggers in person?
10. What are you reading?
Other than Warhammer novels from Black Library, I don't read that much non-fiction. Like I said it's usually some Church document or Newadvent article. The last few titles I've read are "Duty Calls" (Warhammer 40K), "Without Roots" Ratzinger / Perra, Dante's Inferno, and "City of God" by Augustine. Next up is "Jesus of Nazareth" by Benedict XVI, and to begin the Horus Heresy series with "Horus Rising" (Warhammer 40k).
I pass this quiz to:
The Cannonball at The Crescat/
The Caveman at Lair of the Catholic Cavemen/
Marty at Marty's
Fr. Richsteig at Orthometer/
Gerald Augustinus at The Cafeteria is Closed/
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
"I just thought that the song was not conducive to the meditative nature that should be cultivated during Communion...but I guess I am wrong."
To which another poster replied,
"You are, in fact, wrong. A meditative nature should not be cultivated during communion. Find a perpetual adoration chapel if you want to meditate on the Eucharist."
When another poster agreed with the one who made the above comment they replied,
"Notice a trend here? Those of us who work full time in administering the liturgy seem to agree that communion is not a time for adoration. Maybe we know something you don't!"
(. . .said the Spirit of Vatican II.)
When asked for evidence that after communon is no time for meditating this was provided from Music in Catholic Worship from the USCCB website:
"62. The communion song should foster a sense of unity. It should be simple and not demand great effort. It gives expression to the joy of unity in the body of Christ and the fulfillment of the mystery being celebrated. Because they emphasize adoration rather than communion, most benediction hymns are not suitable."
Call me a schismatic SSPX'er, but I have a huge problem with that.
When doesn't God deserve adoration? Are we supposed to just turn our adoration switches off during communion because it's "People Time"? We have just recieved the Body, Blood soul and divinit of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, which is GOD into ourselves and this is somehow not the time to meditate on it, or give God worship for that we have recieved Him into ourselves?
I understand that even St. Ignatius of Antioch stessed the importance of being one and celebrating one Eucharist in union with the bishop. But even he understood that communion is God first, people second, not vise versa.
This is from a document written by the Committee on the Liturgy in the USCCB. Who's the head of that committee?
I'll conclude with my favorite prayer after communion from the 1962 missal:
Behold, I am in the possession of the Sovereign Good. The first thought, O God, with which Thy presence inspires me, is a sentiment of adoration and respect. Yes, under these sacred veils, where Thy love for me hath concealed the splendor of Thy Majesty, I most humbly adore Thee. I acknowledge Thee as my Master, my Creator, and the Supreme Arbiter of my eternal destiny. But these thoughts are absorbed in the greatness of my confidence. Thou art glorious in heaven, all-powerfull on earth and terrible in hell; But in the Blessed Eucharist Thou art mild, consoling, sweet, and liberal. Ah, what canst Thou refuse me, when Thou hast given me Thyself?
I assume this prayer's no good since it's about God and worship and not about people?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
I've heard all of the arguments, both citing canon law.
The argument supporting it is optional can be read Here:
The argument supporting veiling is still in force can be read here:
A rebuttal by Robert Sungenis to Jimmy Akin and Colin Donovan in favor of veiling can be read here:
The argument generally centers around whether or not the abrogation of the 1917 law by the 1983, with the '83's omission of the issue of veiling actually removed the force of law behind this custom.
For me, at least in my opinion, the issue is quite simple:
The 1983 code abrogated the 1917.
The 1983 code doesn't mention veiling as having the force of law.
BUT, veiling didn't get its force of law form the 1917 code alone. It recieved its force of law from the fact that it is an immemorial custom.
The 1983 code may have removed any force of law veiling recieved from the 1917 code, but it did not, and cannot, remove it as an immemorial custom, unless specifically saying so (which it doesn't). And it's from that, not the code, veiling recieves the force of law.
Plus, it's in the bible. (1Cor 11:3-15)
But what I feel this whole argument is missing is that women should wear the veil because it's good to do so, not because they're told to. To make a comparison, the ideal reason you desire that children will behave is because they understand parental guidance and willfully desire good behavior, not out of fear of punishment if they don't.
You can apply the same thing to obedience of the faithful. I'd rather a person veil themself because they want to, not because they have to. It means much more when they understand the importance and virtue behind the practice.
Would I support a revision that would make it law again? I think so. I'm almost jealous that women have such a pious devotion open to them. (I'd veil myself all the time at mass except it's against scripture and just plain wierd.) But if a person's heart isn't veiled then veiling only their head won't do much. I think that the devotion must first come internally and then externalize. Otherwise it's merely going through the motions.
"... you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness...first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean."
Monday, September 24, 2007
"The California State Senate passed legislation requiring students from kindergarten through twelfth grade to support instruction on homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.
The bill, known as SB 777, requires textbooks and other instructional resources to cast a positive light on homosexual "marriages," cross-dressing, sex-change operations and every other facet of homosexual and bisexual lifestyles.
Parental consent will not be needed for students to receive this instruction.
School-sponsored activities such as the prom, sports activities and cheerleading must also uphold these guidelines on alternative sexuality."
This stuff is ok yet teaching abstinence (aka "common sense") is banned because it's labeled a "religious practice". (Nice excuse. It's banned becaue it's merely contrary to their agenda.)
It's no wonder someday California will fall into the ocean. The city with the highest murder rate in the country was destroyed by a hurricane. Coincidence?
As theists, do we really believe in mere coincidence?
How much longer before laws are passed that makes criticism of "LBGT" lifestyles hate speach?
It happened in Scotland.
It happened in Canada.
It almost happened here.
Now it's happeneing in our schools.
Reports have emerged that Mel 'Madmax' Gibson has been approached to play King Jan Sobieski in an epic movie about the 1683 Siege of Vienna.
Wroclaw-based producer Mariusz Bielak would like Gibson to both star in and direct the picture, and he is optimistic that the Australian maverick will come on board: Bielak was quoted as saying in Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza. "It's his cup of tea.'
'Jan III Sobieski was a charismatic figure' Harasimowicz told GW .' He was a great strategist, a phenomenal knight, and to cap it all, head over heels in love with his wife. This is the kind of figure that Mel Gibson played in 'Braveheart'. But this is a less tragic role - Sobieski triumphed
The Siege of Vienna is regarded by historians as a turning point in European History. The Catholic Alliance - led by the Polish King - saw off the Turkish threat to Central Europe.
Perhaps this will wake up Europe and realize they were almost Eurabia over 300 years ago.
Friday, September 21, 2007
I just noticed that Mahony, Brown, and Trautman (Who is firmly against the new translation of the missal and just hapens to be the head of the commission on the liturgy in the USCCB.) will reach retirement age in four years, Brown being the last in Nov. 2011.
Just a little more than a month after that it will be 2012, the year, iirc, the Mayan calendar stops and the end of the world is predicted. Or, at least, the world as we know it.
(Note: No, I don't put stock in pagan prophecies, I'm just having a bit of fun, that's all. ;) )
Thursday, September 20, 2007
"After meeting at the Vatican Sept. 2-6, the Vox Clara Committee said it hoped the English translation of the Roman Missal would be completed and approved by the end of 2009.
"The members found the texts to be excellent, although suggestions were made for ways in which the choice of alternate words or phrases could render a few sections more faithful to the Latin original or easier to proclaim and comprehend," (PRO MULTIS = FOR MANY! BAH!) the statement said.
It said the final draft translation for the missal should be published by next spring. Then ICEL will complete a second draft, taking into account the reactions of English-language bishops' conferences (I dunno if I like that...) and the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. (That's not so bad. Although I disagree with Arinze's resistence to Summorum Pontificum, I highly favor his Redeptionis Sacramentum and Liturgiam Authenticam, and feel they are spot-on and very needed. Not to mention his thorough criticism of liturgical dance.)
After that, the bishops' conferences vote on the second draft. The Vatican's worship and sacraments congregation then takes final action, considering any eventual amendments that are proposed by bishops' conferences." (And let's hope Arinze gives Trautman the proverbial finger.)
Let's also hope Trautman is absent on those voting days.
Even though I'm rather dedicated to the TLM, I'd still love to see reforms to the new mass. Arinze has outlined grave abuses and Summorum Pontificum is set to have the TLM "infect" the new mass, and there's hopefully a better missal on the way. Now all that has to be done is to enforce it all. (Of course, that's the hardest part.)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
"Q: Your Eminence, this document was accompanied by fear and polemics. What is not true about what has been said or read?
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: It is not true, for example, that power was taken away from bishops over the liturgy, because the Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: The bishop gives the "celebret," the power to be able to celebrate, but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate.
If anyone impedes him, it is up to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in the name of the Holy Father, to take measures until this right -- which is a right that is clear to the faithful by now -- is respected."
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, hippies!
Rorate Caeli reports that the Bishop of Caserta, Raffaele Nogaro, on Sunday evening called Father Giovanni Battista Gionti, the rector of the Shrine of Saint Anne of Casertam, "and ordered him to suspend the celebration" (TLM).
Apparently, this guy lets muslims and schismatics use his facilities for their worship:
"Who grants the diocesan structure of the Tent of Abraham to Muslims for the Friday prayers and the chapel adjacent to the Cathedral of Caserta to the Ukrainian and Moldavian Orthodox."
So it's ok for non-Catholics to use it for their non-Catholic worship, but heaven forbid if a treasure of Catholic heritage is celebrated there. . . Here's what he had to say for himself:
"Right - he says - because to help people pray is an honorable effort. While to grumble in Latin does not serve any purpose whatsoever.
"The faithful must be offered something which is valuable and educational, not occasions of disorientation. And I maintain that numbing them with sacred images is only choreography and roleplaying. A useless aesthetic object which does not convey anything."
Ok, so how does Arabic, Slavonic, or Romanian help the Italians in Italy, if Latin does not? Where does he get off saying, "...is only choreography and roleplaying"? Say the black, do the red. That is your job. What is he so affraid of?
Monday, September 17, 2007
A rather interesting story from Catholic News Service:
"LONDON (CNS) -- British musicians recorded the classic Irish hymn, "Sweet Heart of Jesus," in a calypso, disco style and sent it to Pope Benedict XVI on an iPod nano.
The musicians' intention, however, was to soften the pope's attitude toward modern church music. The gift is from contemporary Catholic songwriters Jo Boyce and Mike Stanley, and it features a new album of classic hymns reworked in modern forms of music. The duo has used instruments such as pianos, saxophones, guitars, drums and synthesizers to recreate centuries-old works in laid-back gospel, folk, funk, soul and lounge-music styles.
The album, "Age to Age," was downloaded onto an iPod and sent to Pope Benedict in the hope of gaining a "papal seal of approval,"
The move is something of a gamble given that Pope Benedict, an aficionado of classical music, said in 1996 that rock music was not very uplifting for the soul and certainly did not belong in church. "
Apparently, liberal Catholics, like rapists, don't know that NO means NO.
Somehow they think the more they chant their demands and the louder they chant that the Pope will all of a sudden give in. Jesus said to be like children, not act like them.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
People have been wondering why exactly, after the pope has shown himself to favor the more traditional expressions of our spirituality, why in the world would he be wearing hippie vestments?
At first I thought it was like some project from a local elementary school where kids tye-dyed stuff and the pope, not wanting to offend, agreed to wear them. Y'know, for the kids.
But then I saw everyone was wearing them and figured nothing short of mexican sweat-shop style production could've put out such a copious amount liturgical eyesores.
Well Fr. Z over at WDTPRS has found that even the ultra liberal Viennese (Just check out the Catholic Church COnservation blog to see what I mean) wanted him to wear baroque vestments. Then why didn't he?
The MC, Rev. Piero Marini, overrode them and made the Pope wear the hippie-pancho.
Well at least we know that the Pope is sticking to his traditional guns, that it wasn't his choice.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
"Although it may sound like a strange thing for a theologian to say, as the final means of effecting a better awareness of God’s saving presence in all religions, theological dialogue is less important than the other three forms of dialogue. It is by necessity limited to a narrow circle of experts and often deals with subjects too recondite for the average believer. More crucially, theological exchange presupposes the other three dialogues, and ideally is deeply rooted in them. As is clear from the history of theology, dogmas and doctrines are almost always framed in controversies and frozen in texts that are intelligible only in their historical contexts. It is only within the dialogues of life, action, and religious experience that one can obtain an accurate gauge of the relative importance-or, to use an expression of Vatican II, the “hierarchy of truths”-of these doctrines."
No, it's not who you think.
This is an excerpt from an article written by one Fr. Peter Phan (not a joke), who is now under investigation by the CDF (Or as I like to call it, "The Congregation Formerly Know as the Inquisition") for theological discrepencies found in a book he wrote, which supports elements of indifferentism and religious pluralism, while downplaying the uniqueness of Christ and the role of His Church. Fr. Phan has also been a strong critic of Dominus Iesus. Hat tip to Gerald over at the Closed Cafeteria. (Linked on the sidebar)
Friday, September 14, 2007
For information on the history and significance of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Fisheaters has a wonderful article on it:
UPDATE: The televised TLM on EWTN was absolutely beautiful, but experienced technical difficulties from just after the consecration of the bread to about the people's communion. Bad time to have such difficulties, given the importance of this broadcast, but other than that it was fine.
The homily was superb, very comprehensive; He highlighted the importance of the Extraordinary Form, the Importance of the Exaltation of the Cross, and above all the importance of today's gospel, and a focus on actual participation means, and the importance of latin; Each topic intertwining with the next.
I'll be sure to post it here if EWTN puts it in their archive.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Since this isn't the first time these issues have come up I feel it worthy to explain it here.
First, let's look at what freedom actually is:
CCC #1739 "...Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom."
CCC #1740 ". . . The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods." ... By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth."
CCC #1742 ". . . The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials"
CCC #1744 "Freedom is the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate acts of one's own. Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good."
So from reading this we see that true freedom is acting in accordance with God's will. That is, when acting in a moral fashion. We have free will to choose evil but not the God-given moral right to do so. By acting immorally, we have violated our freedom. Only by acting along the moral law are we trully free, immorality imprisons us. Our free will is unlimited, but our freedom is not. We may will ourselves to do evil but we have no freedom or right to do so.
These arguments are mostly derived from Pius IX's syllabus of errors, and his encyclical, Quanta Cura.
First, let's deal with freedom of conscience:
From Quanta Cura:
". . . thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right."
From the Syllabus of Errors:
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. -- Ibid.
4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. -- Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
To understand this fully, we must ask ourselves: Do we have the God-given right to think and do things that are outside of God's will? Do we have a moral right to dissent with that, as long as it's reasonable?
No, for morality is God's will. Anything contrary to that is immoral. We do not have a moral right to immorality.
We have free-will, with which we can accept or reject God's will. But we know that if we reject it, even though it is with our God-given free will, we will be damned. Just because we can do something doesn't mean it's always permissable and just. That's the beauty of free will; God wants us to choose to do His will, not be forced to do His will. That uncoerced choice is what God wants.
These passages are dealing with moral relativism. As long as the human mind can rationalize it, it must be OK.
What Pius IX is condemning here is placing the human reason above that of God; that human reason alone determines what is right. Objective truth has been destroyed by popular vote. If the majority thinks it's right then it is. If it can be rationalized then it's ok. Well sometimes the majority can be objectively wrong. This is what is condemned; the usurping of God from right and wrong and replacing him with our own imperfect reason.
There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. We do not have the right (a right being a choice or entitlement where either decision will have no ill consequences) to choose evil. Evil is not acceptable to God. Anything Contrary to God's will is unacceptable to Him. Our free will allows us to choose it, but we have no right to it.
Next, let's deal with Freedom of Religion:
From Quanta Cura:
". . . called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
From the Syllabus of Errors:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
Relating to my earlier commentary, if we do not have the right to relativize morality, do we have the right to falsely worship? All Catholics can agree, at least I hope, that non-Catholic worship is false worship, and is sinful. Is there a time where God allows, or gives us a right to sin?
Like I stated before, just because we can that doesn't mean we should. If a religion is sacrilegous and blasphemous and is an obvious affront to God, do we have the God-given right to practice it?
No we do not. For the same reason we have no moral right to dissent and disobey God's will, we have no moral right to false worship. All religions are not morally equivalent. That is the heresy of idifferentism. There is true worship and there is false worship. Being intellectually honest to our faith there is no reason why we should support the practice of false worship.
Being Catholic we know the truth which puts more responsibility on us. We know that God abhors false worship, even from the ignorant. Culpable or not, a sin is still sin. There is never a time, ignorant or not, that we have a God-given right to sin.
Since the state recieves it's authority from God, the state cannot accept all religions as morally equivalent because God does not accept all religions as morally equivalent. Which leads us to the next part:
Separation of Church and State:
From Quanta Cura:
"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones."
"And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, "
"Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal error of "Communism and Socialism," they assert that "domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education."
"For they are not ashamed of affirming "that the Church's laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power's sanction and approbation,"
From the Syllabus of Errors:
39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. . . . Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852
The authority of the State is God-given, and has a divine origin, as seen in the Catechism:
CCC #2234 "God's fourth commandment also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it."
CCC #2235 "Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant."41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law."
As we do not have the moral right to dissent against God's will, neither does the State (whose authority is God-given) have the right to enact laws or act in such a way that is contrary to God's will. The state has no right to separate itself from objective truth from which it derives its authority. Just as we do not have a moral right to immorality, neither does the state.
What is condemned here is the idea that the state can separate itself from God and set itself up as the author of truth. God no longer determines what is right and wrong, the state does. But most states determine this by popular vote. Again, we're back to moral relativism. If the state has recieved it's authority to rule from God, and the state then separates itself from God, then the state no longer has any authority. It has disconnected itself from the very source of it's authority. That authority is objective truth. Without that we have our feet planted firmly in the air.
So I hope this helps to clear up some things about Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors. Especially in this world, we can indulge our free wills almost as much as we wish, doing any number of immoral things, all within the law of the State. But the law of God is higher than the law of man. It is the law of God that gives the state it's authority. We, nor the State, have the moral right to do anything immoral. That is, to do evil.
"As you know i am not catholic. probably invincibly ignorant. so I feel safe."
Is this the message this new ecumenism is sending?
It really says something when someone feels safe in their ignorance. Even WC has admitted, although having a heretical view of salvation, that Catholicism is the best path. How can one be complacent and "feel safe" when not on the best path?
This person will no doubt hear of this post. I'm telling them right here and now that invincible ignorance is not a free-pass to salvation. Your ignorance can help you or it can damn you. (Rom 2:15) There is no reason to feel safe. Outside visible union with the Church your soul is in grave danger. I urge you come into the bosom of the Church for the sake of your soul.
Winnipeg Catholic over at Reformed Catholic wrote an entire post about little ol' me. I'm rather flattered (seriously) that someone would take the time to think about me long enough to inspire an entire post, be it good or bad. I thought I'd return the favor.
In this newest post, he refers to our debates regarding EENS. He goes so far as to say Pope John Paul II accepted other religions as other paths to salvation, just that ours is the best. He opens with:
"Well, I have received a lot of traffic lately from a Mr. Unitas who claims I am a heretic for statements along the lines of:'There are lots of paths to God but ours is the best one.'"
Like I've said before, this particular view he holds, among others, is in direct variance with Catholic teaching. All conotations aside, that is by definition, heresy.
He then goes on to quote from JP's "'Crossing the Threshold of Hope"to try to prove his point. I must admit, none of the quoted piece substantiates his claim that JP held other religions as other paths to salvation. (Go ahead and check the post) But there is an interesting sentence which I think is worth bringing up here:
"The church has a high regard for their conduct and way of life, for those precepts and doctrines which, although differing on many points from that which the Church believes and propounds, often reflect a ray of truth that enlightens all men."
Quite pastoral and warm and fuzzy. The last sentence there is what I'm getting at, "for those precepts and doctrines . . . often reflect a ray of truth..."
If they are other legitimate paths to salvation why do they only reflect truth instead of radiating the truth? If these other faiths merely reflect some truth, what is truth's source?
1Ti 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. " (There's that hi-lighter again!)
So it is not that they are legitimate paths to salvation, but are merely reflecting parts of the one path to salvation; The Catholic faith.
Which I'm affraid proves his statement:
"The grand point here is that one can attain salvation according to John Paul II through other faiths. These include Hinduism, Buddhism, et cetera."
He also seems to have a thing against my "hi-lighter" (read the comments).
"Everything John Paul II discusses in that chapter comes straight from the documents that Unitas cites. Thing is, Unitas loves to use bold print to emphasize the things HE wants you to take away from the text."
My only response is, if those documents, parts of which I emphasize, don't say what they say, then why do they say it?
"Insisting on emphasizing only the exclusive bits, now that's what I call cafeteria conservativism. And you will notice Unitas has his own bold face all over any document he cites. His little cafeterianist highlighter comes out so he can squash the church's liberal/tolerant/loving side."
More like I'm using a flashlight to find the good stuff in a pile of pastoral vagueness. The truth is there, you just gotta look for it. Plus, it would be unreasonable for me to paste entire documents on here; It's far easier to just get to the point and quote the pertinent parts and move on. If any of my readers feels I have left out important context that refutes any of my claims feel free to post them.
Coming from a person who derives their identity by adhering to the Winnipeg Statement who uses "Cafeterianist" as a perjorative in reference to me is a bit like the plank pointing out the speck, isn't it?
The Truth is much more important than "squashing", don't you think? It's just that when espousing the truth of the Catholic faith, liberal cafeteria Catholics end up squashed in the process. It's not the aim but merely the double-effect. I'm sure you understand. ;)
Be sure to note the differences between what I have said on this blog and what he claims I think:
"Think deeply about what Unitas is trying to derive from the documents he cites. He seems to be tempted far more in the direction of 'All non-catholics and liberal catholics are going to hell.' Is that charitable? Is that really what the church says? "
No, WC, you're right; That's not what the Church, nor I, say. I've just finished a lengthy but comprehensive treatment on my understanding of EENS just below this post, cited with selections from sacred scripture as well as pre and post-conciliar documents. In a comment to which post you allege John Paul II didn't adhere to the Catholic dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. That's quite an accusation. And at a Pope, no less.
"Everything John Paul II discusses in that chapter comes straight from the documents that Unitas cites. Thing is, Unitas loves to use bold print to emphasize the things HE wants you to take away from the text."
At least I emphasize what's actually written.
Your interpretation that JPII accepted other religions as paths to salvation isn't supported anywhere in your excerpt or in any of the documents I have ever cited. That's your injection into the text. That's what you wish everyone takes away from reading this, but it's just not there. Don't pee on your audience and tell them it's rain.
But WC shows that he's at least capable of behaving like a gentleman:
". . . but I can set that aside since from the looks of Unitas's blog he seems like a fairly decent fellow for a Rad-Trad."
See? He can be polite when he wants to be.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Outside the Church there is no salvation.
The most misinterpretted Dogma, I think, in Catholic history.
Following is my understanding of the dogma, in accordance with the Magisterium.
First Part (Some grounding) :
- The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1Ti 3:15)
- The Church is the Body of Christ, only Christ being the way, the truth, and the life. The Catholic faith is the true faith, the only path that saves. (Eph 5:23, John 14:6)
- No one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, the one Mediator. (John 14:6, 1Ti 2:5)
- He who rejects the Church, rejects Christ. And he who rejects Christ, rejects God the Father. (Luke 10:16, Mat 10:40)
Second Part (application. Points are substantiated with citations.) :
- God gives to man the initial grave of faith freely. Man cannot merit it for himself; it is a free gift of God. We are duty-bound to respond to that initial grace of faith to the fullest, in word and deed, with honesty and without bias. This search for truth, the fostering of this initial grace of faith, when conducted in this manner will ultimately lead to the Catholic Church.
CCC #2010 "Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion."
Lumen Gentium: "All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged. . . . All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation."
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei: "7. Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfilment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate."
- The Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church is the repository of all revealed Truth and is necessary for the salvation of mankind.
CCC #168 "It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: "Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you", as we sing in the hymn "Te Deum"; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: "I believe", "We believe". It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: "What do you ask of God's Church?" And the answer is: "Faith." "What does faith offer you?" "Eternal life."54
CCC #169 "Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith."
Unitatis Redinigratio: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."
Pope Pius XII: "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth."
Lumen Gentium "In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
- There is recourse to those who through no fault of their own are ignorant of the Gospel and the Church, that through following the Natural Law written upon their hearts, there is a possibility they too may be saved.
Pope Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore: "It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin."
Pope Pius IX, Allocution Singulari Quadem: ". . . it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God."
CCC 847: "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"
- Invincible Ignorance is not automatic salvation, but only lessens a person culpability for not following the true faith due to circumstances that prevent the revealed truth from reaching him.
CCC #1735 "Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors."
- The Natural Law is a truth written upon the hearts of mankind by being made in His image. The nature if this truth is divinely revealed to mankind by God. Since the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth and She alone is the conduit which truth is revealed to mankind, (Both points cited earlier) the Natural Law, as is the Decalogue, is Catholic in nature. (As both the Natural Law and the Church are guided by the same Holy Spirit.)
St. Augustine "God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts."
CCC #1956 "The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9"
- Therefore, salvation either by full knowledge and assent to the faith of Christ's Church, or under the exception of one who is invincibly ignorant yet righteous, both are saved by the one Truth entrusted by God to His Catholic Church alone. There is only one Truth, and only one path to salvation.
- Those outside the visible structure of the Church to whom the Truth of the Church has reached are no longer invincibly ignorant. (Opposite of CCC #847)
- Those who reject the Truth when it is revealed to them are not responding to the initial grace of faith with honesty and without bias, that leads all men to the Catholic Church. Their ignorance is not invincible but willful ignorance. Not only with they not be saved but they will be more severely judged. Free will was used to deny Christ's Truth.
Luke 19:11-27, 10:16, Mat 10:40
Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio "Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ"
Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Singulari Quidem ". . . this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood."
Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore "But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom 'the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,' (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. The words of Christ are clear enough: 'And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican' (Matthew 18:17); 'He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that dispeth you, despiseth Me; and he that dispiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me' (Luke 10:16); 'He that believeth not shall be condemned' (Mark 16:16); 'He that doth not believe, is already judged" (John 3:18); 'He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth' (Luke 11:23). The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned' (Titus 3:11); the Prince of the Apostles calls the 'false prophets ... who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction' (2 Peter 2:1)."
Lumen Gentium: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. . . If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."
CCC #1744-1745 " Freedom is the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate acts of one's own. Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good. Freedom characterizes properly human acts. It makes the human being responsible for acts of which he is the voluntary agent. His deliberate acts properly belong to him."
- Our ignorance, depending on the nature of that ignorance, can mitigate our sins on the way to salvation or damn us to everlasting fire.
I hope that helps to clarify the dogma.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
"This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”.
The successors of the Apostles, together with the Pope, are responsible for the truth of the Gospel, and all Christians are called to share in this responsibility, accepting its authoritative indications. Every Christian is bound to confront his own convictions continually with the teachings of the Gospel and of the Church’s Tradition in the effort to remain faithful to the word of Christ, even when it is demanding and, humanly speaking, hard to understand. We must not yield to the temptation of relativism or of a subjectivist and selective interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Only the whole truth can open us to adherence to Christ, dead and risen for our salvation.
From the Catechism:
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
"For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
From Humanae Vitae:
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
From Evangelium Vitae:
"Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".5
It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".
From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
From: The relevance of priestly celibacy today, Congregation for the Clergy
Celibacy is a charism which the Holy Spirit bestows on some in function of a good that redounds to the good of the whole Church. As a charism, celibacy is one of those divine favours which no one can ever dispute, any more than anyone is entitled to dispute the choice made by the Son of God of having an ever virgin Mother and a virgin for his putative father too.
Demanding a total and exclusive love, the Church chooses those who, having received the charism of perfect chastity, freely intend to follow the call to continue the mission of salvation bequeathed to them as their heritage by the divine Spouse...
Hence, ecclesiastical authority will certainly not try to impose a charism on anyone to which he has not been called; but it does have every right to lay its hands exclusively on those who have received the free gift of chastity in the celibate life from the Holy Spirit. The priestly vocation, therefore, is not simply a subjective self-giving on the part of the individual, but requires clear signs of ‘vocability’ which only the bishop is deputed to ascertain and confirm.
From Unam Sanctum:
"...we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Face it, heretics...
It's never gonna happen.
Even post-conciliar documents have you pegged.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
When a self-proclaimed "Catholic" says something like this you know VII needs clarification.
I could refute this heresy on so many levels but I think the error stands for itself.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
"At least two dozen newspapers refused to run a cartoon last Sunday (the first of a two-part series) because it might offend Muslims; more newspapers are expected to censor the September 2 installment. The cartoon strip that was slated to run on August 26, Berkeley Breathed’s “Opus,” contained a sexually suggestive panel and poked fun at radical Islam. “Opus” is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group, which is led by Alan Shearer.
Shearer explained that “Whenever something lands close to the edge, we give editors enough notice” in case they choose to run something else. He checked with Islamic experts to see if the “Opus” strips might be a problem, and even though they said they weren’t, they were nixed anyway. Muslim staffers at the Washington Post were also asked for their input.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows:
“The Washington Post, and all the other newspapers which refuse to print these cartoons, are simultaneously sporting their cowardice and bigotry. In 2006, this same newspaper portrayed the Sacred Heart of Jesus with the symbol of the Democratic Party, and it depicted the disgraced Congressman Mark Foley as a candidate for the priesthood at ‘Saint Paedophilia’s.’ In 2004, it displayed a bishop monitoring Catholics in a voting booth, and it showed a habit-wearing nun brandishing a ruler while ‘little Mel Gibson gets beaten to a bloody pulp by Sister Dolores Excruciata of the Little Sisters of the Holy Agony.’ In 2002, it depicted a bishop and two priests as the ‘Axis of Evil,’ and in 2001 it twice mocked the Eucharist. "
The only reason Jihadists commit terrorist acts is becasue they have it in their heads that terrorism works.
Well with the topic of Islam being a possible riot-starting embassy-burning, hot-potato combined with the press' overwhelming political correctness, it seems terrorism gets results.
Already in the UK people are under fire for putting "jihad" and "terrorism" in the same sentence.
But it's still ok to print offensive anti-Catholic editorials and cartoons. Why? Because they know Catholics won't blow you up over it. Deep down they know christianity is a religion of peace and Islam's claim to that phrase is, well, questionable. They see Catholicism as an easy target that won't fight back.
The only reason the papers pander to the jihadists is that jihadists are merely the bigger bully. Bullies are cowards by nature especially the papers in this case. I don't condone any cartoons whose purpose is to be offensive. But if it happens I'm not going to burn something in effigy over it. I'm just tired of the double-standard.
They make it seem they're being the nice guys not wanting to offend anyone. But the truth is since they have zero qualms about printing anti-Catholic cartoons, they just care about protecting their own butts.
Perhaps if the west decides to stand up for itself, ends the pandering, embraces and treasures its Judeo-christian roots, and fights back, the jihadists will know terrorism no longer profits.